Rumour 2024 Hypothetical trade and FA Thread

[butlers hawks]

I don’t understand the Richmond argument. Other teams could offer future 1st rounders and out bid their crappy late picks anyway.

wouldnt help the team trading for the future firsts with points this year to match. Thats where the Richmond angle is, they traded for all these future picks hoping that Carlton etc would give up top picks for their points

 

[kazzooka]

I have no problem with a father son going at pick one or an academy kid going in the first round. The problem I have always had is when a club has multiple academy kids in the same round, they should only have the ability to match one of them in each round.

None of this GC bullshit of being able to match 3 academy kids in the first round.

FS should stay the same except for no points reduction, clubs should have to pay full price. You'll find most clubs will do that anyway.

I think also Father Son should be thought of as a you have dibs to match so even if your pick isn't high enough you can still get the son. BUT if you trade out your first pick, bad luck. You can't trade out pick 10 and expect to match a bid at 8 with pick 28. I don't think you should be forced to trade up to pick 1 if you finished 3rd but if you have your original pick and pick 1 equivalent points it's okay.

The other loophole is what sydney did picking macdonald at 4 and then matching a bid for campbell at 5. Overlooking campbell at 4 should be considered a surrender of their dibs on a player.

The bid matching should only be for when you have no option to select that player with your assigned draft pick.

 

[VernonSpots]

Why is it a bad thing? Whats he going to tell them "sorry, I am committing to Hawks today so don't let me participate in the academy which is free and great for my development as a footy player"

 

[Nugett]

I have been of the opinion that they should just scrap picks altogether and bring in points. The lower you finish the more points you get. For example if we take last years finishing positions, West Coast gets 2000 points for finishing last, while Collingwood gets 300 points for finishing first. That way clubs are having to trade points in, or out for players that they want to trade, or bring in. Have a point system for free agency compo, with a cap on the maximum. So Geelong holding out for pick 74, in its trade to Port, just could have been an extra 15 points from Port, so making it easier to get trade done, although clubs will still procrastinate.

For the draft itself I’d have it so that all clubs could bid on a player, by using the points they have, with the first round being a minimum 100 points, 2nd round being 50 points ect. So using Harley Reid for example, who was pick 1, west Coast bids 100 points, we come in and say we will bid 300 points, where eventually North comes in with a bid of 500 points ect. West Coast then gets in for example Curtain and McKersher for for 300 and 400 points, enabling them to bring in 2 top end talent, rather than 1.

For F/S and academy kids, you can still have a 10% discount, on the finishing bid. So for something like last year, where Gold Coast got 3 first round picks, for basically nothing, as all they really did was trade out pick 5 for a bunch of nothing picks to match points. Which then compromised the draft to a laughable extent. With using points rather than using “points” on picks, it would have forced Gold Coast to bring in more points, to get the three players in, either by trading players out, or using future points, in securing the points they need. Otherwise they can only afford to bring in 1 or 2 of the players, but won’t have enough points for the third. It’s the same for us, with Matching MaCabe, we would have to have the points there to match.

 

[kazzooka]

This discussion might belong in a different thread, so Mods can move if they wish.

The rules should be changed. My suggestion would be:

1. Reduce the discount. 10% for academies. No discount for Father/Son. If an academy kid is also eligible for F/S, there is zero discount no matter which club he picks. If a club is lucky enough to be able to match more than 2 bids in the same draft, any discount after the first 2 bids should be reduced to 5% or zero.

2. Every bid must be matched with a pick within 15 picks of the bid. Being in the same round is too difficult because a bid might come at pick 17. But no more matching pick 9 with 34 and 38. It might take two picks to match a bid, but at least one must be within 15 picks of the bid. This could be reduced to 10 or 12, but I think 15 would be fair and easier to manage.

3. Clubs with NGA players should be able to match bids earlier. The top ten might be exempt and 11-20 might have a smaller discount, but there is not much incentive for clubs if the top 40 picks are all off limits.

The AFL also need to do lots of work on equalizing the fixture and sharing the marquee timeslots, but that is another story.

I disagree on step 1. no discounts for academies and FS players CANNOT be an academy player. That's not what they are for, I think if your dad played div12 ressies you shouldn't be able to be an academy player.

 

[Platten44]

wouldnt help the team trading for the future firsts with points this year to match. Thats where the Richmond angle is, they traded for all these future picks hoping that Carlton etc would give up top picks for their points

Look at the Gold Coast/Dogs trade last year

 

[Judd2Sewell]

There should simply be no discount. Clubs are free to match bids, but at the full price equivalent. The advantage is being able to match in the first place.

 

[VernonSpots]

I have been of the opinion that they should just scrap picks altogether and bring in points. The lower you finish the more points you get. For example if we take last years finishing positions, West Coast gets 2000 points for finishing last, while Collingwood gets 300 points for finishing first. That way clubs are having to trade points in, or out for players that they want to trade, or bring in. Have a point system for free agency compo, with a cap on the maximum. So Geelong holding out for pick 74, in its trade to Port, just could have been an extra 15 points from Port, so making it easier to get trade done, although clubs will still procrastinate.

For the draft itself I’d have it so that all clubs could bid on a player, by using the points they have, with the first round being a minimum 100 points, 2nd round being 50 points ect. So using Harley Reid for example, who was pick 1, west Coast bids 100 points, we come in and say we will bid 300 points, where eventually North comes in with a bid of 500 points ect. West Coast then gets in for example Curtain and McKersher for for 300 and 400 points, enabling them to bring in 2 top end talent, rather than 1.

For F/S and academy kids, you can still have a 10% discount, on the finishing bid. So for something like last year, where Gold Coast got 3 first round picks, for basically nothing, as all they really did was trade out pick 5 for a bunch of nothing picks to match points. Which then compromised the draft to a laughable extent. With using points rather than using “points” on picks, it would have forced Gold Coast to bring in more points, to get the three players in, either by trading players out, or using future points, in securing the points they need. Otherwise they can only afford to bring in 1 or 2 of the players, but won’t have enough points for the third. It’s the same for us, with Matching MaCabe, we would have to have the points there to match.

It wont work. Clubs will go crazy and bid up to nonsense levels and basically mortgage their futures. We can all say its "buyer beware" but will just create real competitive imbalances which the AFL will step in to fix in the future. It also just adds more complexity which is unnecessary, and i dont think any other league in the world does this?

 

[VernonSpots]

There should simply be no discount. Clubs are free to match bids, but at the full price equivalent. The advantage is being able to match in the first place.

Yes this completely. Also, if matching in first round, you need to use your allocated draft pick already to the extent it hasnt been used (i.e. you hold pick 1 and use it before your f/s is bid on). Removes the nonsense about collecting handful of mid range draft picks for an equivalent top 10

 

[kirbatron]

No discounts on FS & Academy. Priority access is the benefit.
Drop entry point from 40 to 25 for NGA.
Open up future trading from 12 to 24-36mths (with certain guidelines)
If player is FS & Academy eligible & they don't nominate FS. They are in the open pool.

 

[ahhhhhh]

If you want some comedy at Richmond's expense:

 

[butlers hawks]

Look at the Gold Coast/Dogs trade last year

yeah they got in a future first but they also got picks in that draft to then on trade for more points. From memory it was picks 11, 18 and 2024 1st for 6 and some later picks then they flipped 11 and 18 and then flipped again and again

the other part of this is if the changes come they will dictate how teams trade their picks to then fit in with the new rules. If its the fact that they need to get inside a Lombard pick the Suns might need to use this years and next years to move up or they might have to keep next years for Uwland etc so the actual answer is until these changes come through teams wont know yet what they are doing but there's a good chance the old system of dumping firsts to get picks is finished if not this year then next

 

[Judd2Sewell]

If you want some comedy at Richmond's expense:

View attachment 2025419

View attachment 2025416

It's really amateur hour stuff to have this change come in over halfway through the season, when teams have formed strategies over the previous system.

 

[ahhhhhh]

It's really amateur hour stuff to have this change come in over halfway through the season, when teams have formed strategies over the previous system.

I also think it probably serves Richmond right for trying to be too smart with the system.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

It wont work. Clubs will go crazy and bid up to nonsense levels and basically mortgage their futures. We can all say its "buyer beware" but will just create real competitive imbalances which the AFL will step in to fix in the future. It also just adds more complexity which is unnecessary, and i dont think any other league in the world does this?

Teams do that now, you can't protect them from themselves. If a club wants to go all in on getting the #1 pick, that's no different to doing the same with points.

We're one of the only competitions in the world where the players contracts aren't "owned" by the club. Everywhere else players are either simply told who their new employer is (Baseball, Basketball, Soccer "loans"), or are always a Free Agent and can go at their choosing.

I disagree on the complexity too - IMO it significantly simplifies trade week, FA compo, Draft Bid Matching etc by providing a consistent model for barter. No more arguing over the minutia of value (holding out for an extra 4th round pick one club needs to find from a third party that delays trade week for days) - simply agree to a price between the two clubs. Trade week would become more of an Auction process - clubs simply bidding a points value for the player, until the current club is satisfied. Forces everyone to be more "fair".

No more future picks, etc - clubs simply have a pool of points that roll over from one year to the next - points awarded for ladder position (reverse order), FA compensation, trade period, etc.

 

[bindas12]

It's really amateur hour stuff to have this change come in over halfway through the season, when teams have formed strategies over the previous system.

there's never going to be a perfect time. But any step towards making the comp fairer should be made asap regardless of what's come before or just about to.

 

[cryptor]

I also think it probably serves Richmond right for trying to be too smart with the system.

Their list manager wouldn't be doing his job if he wasn't planning more than the current draft ahead. Particularly when they have multiple F/S coming through.

 

[butlers hawks]

I also think it probably serves Richmond right for trying to be too smart with the system.

So...you thought you'd outsmarted the system??

 

[ahhhhhh]

Their list manager wouldn't be doing his job if he wasn't planning more than the current draft ahead. Particularly when they have multiple F/S coming through.

He took a risk, and it looks like it isn't going to pay off. He should wear the consequences.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

He took a risk, and it looks like it isn't going to pay off. He should wear the consequences.

He worked a strategy that was based on the system in place. They planned ahead.

Now 15 rounds into the season and the AFL have decided to change things around. If they had given everyone forewarning that this change was being looked at and would be implemented in the future, and Richmond still rolled the dice, then fair enough. But it seems this change has come about quickly and has caught teams off guard. It's amateurish.

 

[Nugett]

This changing of rules, without notification would be like purchasing a Metallica concert ticket, and the organisers with a day to go decide to change it from Metallica to Justin Bieber. You can totally understand the anger.

 

[TylerDurden]

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Hope he goes somewhere and becomes a success.

 

[number23]

I’ve seen a couple of people post that Serong is from wa but I don’t know if that was number23 way of thinking

It wasn't. The lure of playing with your brother is always a good one and he would be cheap.

 

[cryptor]

He took a risk, and it looks like it isn't going to pay off. He should wear the consequences.

Given it's Richmond and Carlton getting shafted I'm happy to sit here and laugh at their misfortune if this continues to unfold. But it's still completely bogus for the AFL to make these kinds of changes on such short notice. And no, flagging that there might be some unspecified changes coming is hardly the type of notice that clubs can plan around.